Talk:Holographic duplicate
PNA Needs some more work and organization. Text could be added if name (hologram) pages are merged here. - Archduk3:talk 20:34, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Others I remember Kes as having a temporary holo recording / program in the Voyager episode "Fury." It was was activated and it talked to a future version of Kes who came back in time to destroy the USS Voyager. Not sure if that qualifies.--Jlandeen 11:36, December 20, 2009 (UTC) :That was a holographic recording, not a holographic recreation, so my guess would be probably not(at least given how the article defines it currently).--31dot 14:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC) ::Agreed, that's essentially the same as a regular old recorded message on a viewscreen, which wouldn't be worth noting. -Mdettweiler 17:41, December 20, 2009 (UTC) :::Actually, several recordings are already listed, it might be worth mentioning the difference. - Archduk3:talk 01:01, December 21, 2009 (UTC) Arrangement of information useful? I'm not trying to dispute the usefulness of the information itself - but is this really the best way to display that information? For example, there's an image of Worf up for deletion right now (because a near-duplicate from the same episode exists), with a "Keep" vote based on the fact that the two images show two different holographic duplicates of Worf. I counted five images of Worf on this page, where there is no visible difference to the "real" Worf character. Riker is a close second with four images. So, why do we need different images, if the character looks just as he always looks? Just because this list is maintained as a set of image galleries? Wouldn't it be better to just list where a specific character was recreated holographically, for example on the article about that character, than to have a huge gallery of images not being nearly as informative? -- Cid Highwind 19:56, December 20, 2009 (UTC) :It was debated, at length, on Forum:Additional characters what constituted a "additional appearance" (along with the term/name). It was decided, and apparently already the standard, that a physically different character was an additional one, so each and every hologram is a different character, hence they have their own images, since each one is a different character. That being said, this list uses images (since I originally compiled it from the actors pages and the "character (hologram)" pages. So in response to your comment on the image deletion page, yes, we are overthinking this, IMO at least.- Archduk3:talk 20:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC) :Also, when the merge discussion on the aforementioned pages is settled, I was going to start writing more detailed explanations. - Archduk3:talk 20:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC) That doesn't really answer the question I was asking, though. Is this article, with the information it contains arranged in the way it is, really useful to anyone? If I want to know "which holographic duplicates exist?", then this information is currently hidden behind informal section names such as "Picard's program", and scattered across the whole article. If the question is "how often was Worf holographically recreated?", then this information can currently only be found by scanning through the whole article to hopefully find matching images. Independent of any "debated naming scheme", wouldn't it be much better if I could just have a look at the page of the character, and found a section "Holographic duplicates" that lists these? Or, if it needs to be this separate article, then at least one sorted by character, and not by, basically, episode? (BTW, if it's a list article, it should be moved to Holographic duplicates). -- Cid Highwind 23:01, December 20, 2009 (UTC) :The article is arranged this way since it's suppose to be more than just a list article, as in describing why there were duplicates instead of just listing them (as it does now). I was also trying to avoid this: X was recreated for Y in year. Putting the information in a sortable table might work, as I agree that being able to see the info by character would be nice (I'll be playing around with this idea). As for interlinking to the characters pages, that needs to be done, but since the individual hologram articles are linked at the top of each one, I figured when those are removed would be the best time to do that (since this page is the compromise between the info on the character page and separate articles). As for useful, this plot device is used about once every two seasons, so I think it is a good idea to mention this somewhere, especially since they are listed on the actor's pages and placing the info on the character's pages themselves would be contrariety to the fact that they are not the character. Mainly this page just needs work. - Archduk3:talk 00:51, December 21, 2009 (UTC) :With the change to a sortable table, I think the point you made about finding out how many times a character had been holographically duplicated has been addressed, though the tables default layout is essentially still by episode. As for name, yes it should be moved back to holographic duplicates, since it is now more list that article, though I would wait until after the discussion on Forum:X (hologram) pages is finished. - 09:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :::I have forged ahead and created a revised temp of this split up by Centuries and Year ranges: Holographic duplicate/temp. This is probably the best way to go about this. Yes, we still need to go through and add all holographic duplicates (not just Starfleet/UFP personnel) into it. Plus, a lot of the information is either misspelled, incorrect, badly worded or repetitive and I will be making those changes (slowly) on the temp page.--Obey the Fist!! 13:19, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :What information was incorrect? - 18:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Episode references if I remember correctly. Most of it was the repeating of "Dr. Lewis Zimmerman created the EMH Mark I based on his own likeness...blah blah blah." I understand adding it once but not every time The Doctor is mentioned as a different hologram.--Obey the Fist!! 12:44, March 29, 2010 (UTC)